Does Spring Hill need fire commissioners?

Looking back on the year with part being a dependent district and part being independent, I am amazed the extent that the Spring Hill Board of Fire Commissioners got to avoid doing any actual work to manage the district.

This was pointed out at the last meeting in December when a commissioner stated on the record "the buck stops with the chief."

Unless I badly misread the ballot last year, the chief wasn't on it and isn't an elected official. In the past, the commission has delegated every power and responsibility imaginable to the chief. The chief is an excellent manager of the department, but there is a limit to his ability to perform everything asked of him within the time available.

No, I am not suggesting the commissioners actively run the department on a day-to-day basis, but they certainly could be more proactive on the administrative side of the operation. In most operations such as this, there is an administrative side and an operations side.

There is a financial director for the district who is well qualified. That position should report to the fire board separately as should the chief, who would represent the operations part. This would let the chief do what he does best - manage the day-to-day operations of the district.

With the budget running in the red this past year (money had to be taken from reserves to balance it), and the prospects for next year not being any better, taking the day-to-day financial tasks and planning from the chief will result, I believe, in a better job being done by both. Of course, there would have to be communications between the two positions.

Another point raised at the last meeting is the question of who signs checks for the district. The commissioners have delegated to the chief the authority to sign checks up to $2,500. More than that amount requires the signature of the finance direct as well. This appears to conflict with the enacting legislation 2009-261 Section 12(2) which requires the treasurer and either the chairman or vice-chairman to sign the checks. The district attorney pointed out that FS191.005 allows the delegation.

My question, which has remained unanswered, is why was this provision put in the bill if it is meaningless? One of the arguments put forth by the commissioners was that they would have to come into headquarters a couple of times a week. This begs the question: Why were they elected?

Under current policy, they approve checks well after the fact - at least a month sometimes two. Maybe they could just meet once a year and at that meeting delegate everything to the chief and go home.

The chief is already acting as the "sixth" commissioner, and with veto powers as well. Example, the district passed resolution 2009-05 that requires the collection of the tangible property tax. The chief was instructed by the commissioners to present this to the county commissioners at their next meeting. While I feel this resolution was ill-advised, nevertheless the chief, on his own initiative and without consultation, decided not to present it to the county.

The voters were told prior to the election in 2008 that since the independent district would no longer have the benefit of oversight by the county commissioners that any questions or problem could be brought to our state elected representatives.

On Dec. 14, I sent via the Florida House Web site an e-mail to Rep. Robert Schenk concerning the conflict between 191.005 and 2009-261 regarding the signing of checks. I received an acknowledgment that the e-mail had been received. To date, I have not received a reply.

So I guess any citizen with a complaint that cannot be answered satisfactorily at the local level will have to travel to Tallahassee to get an answer.

Should we expect more from our board? The answer is yes; in all too many cases people want the title but not the job.

Those who do that should be weeded out by the voters on election day.

Harry E. Chamberlain

Spring Hill